Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep II DoR 398/2015 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2016:II.DOR.398.2015 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses request for leave to appeal as review is automatically permitted by law.

Case Number VSRS Sklep II DoR 398/2015
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal, noting that the review was already permitted by law. The applicant had filed both a request for leave and a review, with the first-instance court dismissing the claim entirely. Since the review was automatically allowed under the relevant statute, the Supreme Court could not grant leave separately.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 367, paragraph 2 of the Act on Civil Procedure; if a review is permitted by law, the Supreme Court cannot separately grant leave to appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
leave to appeal automatic review civil procedure supreme court procedural outcome

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 367, paragraph 2 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL sodba in sklep II Cp 1631/2014
Appeal dismissed; court upheld lower court's rejection of late statute of limitations defense due to procedural misconduct.
VSL sodba II Cp 2938/2015
Court dismisses appeal confirming void loan contract due to lack of capacity to reason at signing.
Sodba II Ips 496/93
Appellant's appeal dismissed; co-owner lacks pre-emptive right against spouse selling apartment under Housing Act.
VSC sklep I Ip 647/2008
Appeal dismissed; temporary order proposal must include specific security method per ZIZ.
VSC Sodba Cpg 83/2020
Appeal dismissed; claim rejected due to void contract and failure to raise conflict of interest defense at first instance.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Predlog se zavrže.

[JEDRO]

Revizija je dovoljena v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367. člena ZPP in je zato Vrhovno sodišče ne more še posebej dopustiti.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je s sodbo zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek v celoti, pritožbeno sodišče pa je s sodbo zavrnilo tožnikovo pritožbo zoper prvostopenjsko sodbo.

2. Tožnik je vložil predlog za dopustitev revizije, pri prvostopenjskem sodišču pa je vložil tudi dovoljeno revizijo.

3. Predlog ni dovoljen.

4. Vrhovno sodišče lahko dopusti revizijo le v primerih, če vrednost izpodbijanega dela pravnomočne sodbe presega 2.000,00 EUR in hkrati ne presega 40.000,00 EUR.(1)

5. Zahtevki v tožbi imajo skupno (odškodninsko) podlago in je zato za določitev sporne vrednosti odločilen njihov seštevek.(2) Vrednost rentnega zahtevka znaša v skladu z določbo 40. člena ZPP, 36.000,00 EUR in znaša tako, ob upoštevanju odškodninskega zahtevka v znesku 25.000,00 EUR, vrednost izpodbijanega dela pravnomočne sodbe, 61.000,00 EUR. Revizija je dovoljena v skladu z drugim odstavkom 367. člena ZPP in je zato Vrhovno sodišče ne more še posebej dopustiti.

----

(1) Primerjaj določbe drugega, tretjega in četrtega odstavka 367. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP).

(2) Primerjaj določbo 41. člena ZPP.